Safer full-body scanners?

This Thruvision scan shows: A) A simulated stick of dynamite concealed in front midriff. B) 35ml of fluid in their front right pocket. C) A knife hidden in front right sock. D) A handgun located in the small of back. E) A one euro coin in back left pocket.

As controversy simmers surrounding the levels of radiation used in full body scanners, a small company based in the United Kingdom has developed a machine that emits no radiation at all.

Over the last year, the US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has installed two types of full body scanners at airport security checkpoints across the country. L3’s Provision millimeter wave scanners (used at SFO) beam radio waves through clothing to detect potentially dangerous objects hidden by terrorists. Rapiscan backscatter scanners (at San Jose and Oakland airports) use low-dose x-rays to do the same.

While both companies and the TSA say that the radiation emitted by these machines is at safe levels, there is no strong consensus about this in the scientific community. A spate of controversy about the use of scanners in the US peaked in late 2010. Since then, despite mixed feelings, most travelers submit to the scans for the sake of expediency. Those who are opposed to the scans can opt instead for “enhanced pat downs” at security checkpoints. Similar controversy erupted over the last year countries such as Germany, Italy, the UK and Australia as airport authorities have tested the devices, although none have adopted the machines for widespread use.

While controversy swirls around the use of millimeter wave or backscatter technology, Thruvision, a small company based in the United Kingdom, is hoping that governments and airport authorities around the world will take a look at its scanning device that emits no radiation at all. Instead, it passively reads the terahertz radiation emitted by human beings, and detects anomalies when concealed items block that radiation. In addition, it does not capture or display intimate body details thereby removing the need for “modesty filtering” software recently added devices in the US.

In July, Thruvision’s terahertz-scanning technology was tested at airports in Sydney and Melbourne, Australia, along with millimeter wave scanners from L3. Ron Frye, Thruvision’s Director of International Business Development, reports that the trials ended with positive results, but Australian authorities have not yet made any firm decisions about usage of full body scanners. He added that airport authorities in Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines are also considering deploying its scanning devices.

“Authorities in Bermuda, which is heavily dependent on tourism and hoping to avoid controversy, recently chose Thruvision devices for airport security screening because our passive technology is 100% radiation-free,” said Frye.

Why aren’t the devices, which are also less expensive than scanners from L3 or Rapiscan, used at US airports? Frye explains, “While our products are used for security screening at military facilities in the US, we estimate it would cost $2-3 million to get through the TSA testing, evaluation and approval process, which could take 2-3 years. We are a small company [37 employees, $4 million annual sales] and don’t have the resources to be able to take that on now. And anyway, we’ve got plenty of business now from airports and other facilities in Asia and the Middle East.”

How have your feelings about full-body scanners evolved? Is it still a hot button issue? Do you submit to scans or opt instead for a pat down? Please leave your comments below.